DAULAT SHAH Vs. PREMCHAND MARWADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MACNAIR , J.C. 1. In execution of a decree the respondent attached immovable property belonging to the appellant. The warrant of attachment states clearly that two houses were attached. The judgment-debtor asked that the property should be released on the ground that he occupied it as an agriculturist and used it solely for his agricultural purposes.. The executing Court held that the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist but required only one house for residence and for keeping implements and seed grain, etc., as he had a separate kotha for bullocks and other articles. It therefore released the smaller house from attachment and refused to release the larger house. In appeal it is first urged that the appellant had only one house and a kotha, but the appellant's own evidence as witness 1 is very clear. He states: The unattached kotha is of 7 tasmas. Of the two houses attached one faces east and other faces west. Kotha faces west ... The house facing east consists of 5 tasmas and that facing west consists of 7 tasmas. Both the houses are double storeyed.

(2.) THE witnesses for the decree-holder appear to speak of only one house and a kotha, but in view of the appellant's own evidence the Subordinate Judge was correct in holding that the judgment-debtor had two houses, one of 5 tasmas and one of 7 tasmas. It is next, urged that the appellant has extensive cultivation and occupies both houses in the capacity of an agriculturist. In Bhaiyalal v. Ballabhadas AIR 1919 Nag 54 it was held that the buildings exempted under Section 60(c), Civil P. C., were not limited to what was necessary for storing cattle and seed grain. Clause (c) exempts houses and other buildings belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him. The appellant is an agriculturist and it is not shown that he has other means of livelihood. In Sadhuram v. Chapsi AIR 1931 Nag. 8 I considered the case in which the judgment-debtor obtained only a substantial portion of his livelihood from cultivation. The buildings occupied by the appellant may be rather larger than is necessary in order to enable him to earn his livelihood, but they are all in one compound. The decree-holder on 7th December 1931 appears to state that the houses are separated from each other by two cubits. The appellant occupies all the buildings. In my opinion Section 60(c), Civil P. C., exempts all the houses and other buildings which form the premises occupied by an agriculturist even if a portion would enable the judgment-debtor to earn his livelihood as an agriculturist. The appeal therefore succeeds and the house in question is released from attachment: costs in this Court and in the executing Court will be borne by the respondent. Counsel's fee in this Court Rs. 20.